get_favorite_recipesRetrieve household favorite recipes with their ratings, enabling informed decisions on which meals to re-propose for upcoming dinners.
Recipes marked as household favorites, with ratings. Good candidates to re-propose by recipe_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a read-only operation (readOnlyHint true), and the description does not contradict that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, latency, or data freshness), relying solely on the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loads the core concept. The second sentence about re-proposing by recipe_id adds a use-case hint but could be more precise; overall it is concise without being terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It provides sufficient context about the content (favorites, ratings) and hints at a purpose (re-proposal), though it does not fully elaborate on the returned structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-related meaning, but none is needed; baseline score of 3 applies because there is nothing to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title states 'Get favorite recipes' and the description clarifies it returns recipes marked as household favorites. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_recipes and get_recipe by focusing on favorites, though the description is more declarative than imperative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions or contrast with sibling tools such as search_recipes or get_recipe, leaving the selection criteria to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.